South End Priorities

South End Priorities

(Developed at June 28 SECC Meeting in response to the AC Land Bank’s cluster development proposal)

1.      Mixed income housing

1. Homeownership
2. Rental

2.      Local employment opportunities

3.      Mixed-use development (with local retail opportunities)

4.      Opportunities for local residents to buy shares in the developments

5.      Community benefit agreement.

6.      No currently vacant buildings should be- left vacant at the end of the process. (Either rehabbed or deemed too far gone and demolished).

7.      Save historic buildings where possible, use to enhance new developments.

8.      Commercial corridor that has clear and welcoming entrances

9.      Crime deterrents through improved infrastructure

1. Address overgrown trees that block streetlights.
2. Improved and upgraded street lights
3. Deteriorated sidewalks

10.  Increase public trash receptacles

11.  Green/energy efficient developments- SUSTAINABILITY

12.  INTERCONNECTED - Smart City

NOTES: Our chance of success with this list depends in part on finding a developer who is willing to work with the community. The more specific we can be about how to achieve the goals on this list the better our chances of success. Specifically:

1.      Housing: What is the mix we desire of rental and owner occupied, and what is the mix of income levels? Numbers will be welcomed by developers even if they come back with their own.

2.      Employment: Write a plan to employ local people using the pipeline being established by current actors, including City of Albany youth programs, City School District and Mission Accomplished, BOCES and others. Can our work group take this on? Again, numbers help.

3.      Retail: If this is a demand, what is the appropriate retail for the Second Avenue area, and what has a reasonable chance of success? What is the developer’s role beyond building an appropriate space? Can we find an owner/operator for the business?

4.      Shares/Ownership: This is David Craft’s proposal and he is working on specifics.

5.      Community Benefits agreement can encompass any of the other items listed here.

6.      Vacant Buildings: The idea is that within the designated development area, the developer takes responsibility for all vacant buildings, including buildings not yet owned by the land bank (where feasible). The city now has the capacity to assess all vacant buildings as to future viability, and decisions on each building should be made in partnership with the Building Department, residents of the area and the developer.

7.      Rehab of difficult buildings should be more feasible because the project is in an historic area and the scale of the project is large enough to allow the developer to access state and federal tax credits.

8.      Crime Deterrent through physical improvements. It will be in the developer’s best interests to have these things done by the city. This is not untypical in new developments, and we can tell the developer we will work with him to insure the city commits its resources.

9.      Trash Receptacles (and improved street cleanliness): Ditto.

10.  Sustainability: There are lots of opportunities to plug into existing energy efficiency programs. (NYSERDA, Green and Healthy NY, Solarize Albany, etc.) Can somebody research what is available, put together a package?

11.  Interconnection: This section of the South End is a candidate for implementation of the city’s initiative to install Wifi on lighting polls, connect residents with the city. With the neighborhood’s support, a developer can ask the city to make this one of its contributions to the project.

Not Discussed:

School 17: This building on Second Avenue is currently in private hands, but could be crucial to the overall success of the project, providing space for both residential and commercial and even community space. Do we want to include a proposal for reuse of School 17?

It’s Now or Never For the South End-Groesbeckville Historic District

The “core” of the South End, between Morton and the Second Avenue area, was designated a federal historic district in 1984, with the best of intentions. The neighborhood has a rich history and its residents have had key roles in Albany for more than four centuries.. The idea behind the federal designation was first to build a sense of pride in a declining neighborhood, and second to open the possibility of  state and federal preservation funding.

But 35 years later, the South End’s historic status has done virtually nothing to help the neighborhood. Instead, twe are in a sea of Red X buildings and vacant lots. “Emergency” demolitions have demoralized residents further. Investment of any sort is a rarity, and the neighborhood’s historic status just makes it more difficult and expensive to get work done.

Time has done the work that good intentions could not. The economics of restoring buildings that have been left vacant and exposed to the elements for decades or more gets more and more difficult as time moves on.

Residents are fed up with the vacant buildings, and beginning to feel the power of their own advocacy. At the June 19 meeting of the city’s Historic Resource Commission a dozen residents showed up in support of the Albany County Land Bank’s petition to demolish 62 Alexander Street. Residents had collected petition signatures of practically everyone within a block of the eyesore building. Many residents knew the history of the building — the families who had lived there — and the extent of the deterioration. One resident said he knows for a fact that the building has been empty for 17 years.

I was told later that  members of the HRC was unaccustomed to this sort of turnout. Still, they managed to take a good half hour discussing the pros and cons of this demolition. They should be ready for many more, and hopefully won’t agonize so long over each one.

62 Alexander is being slowly taken apart, as the land bank seems to have learned how to do responsible demolitions that eliminate the clouds of toxic dust that have plagued residents in the past. We can hope that the city will follow their lead.

I do not believe that most neighborhood residents would advocate tearing down every old building in the South End. There are indeed many buildings that could be saved, restored and made into good dwelling places that give their street the character and beauty that we all appreciate.

But people are no longer willing to wait for something good to happen. The city has initiated yet another study of its historic preservation profile, but the emphasis is clearly on the Center Square, Ten Brock type districts. If historic preservation advocates want to save South End-Groesbeckville as an historic district, they need to do better than stalling tactics to preserve some buildings for some hypothetical future. They need to find a credible, realistic way to match plans with actual money, and development that is feasible in the immediate future.

The good news is that some new tools make decision-making much less painful. The new city ordinance that gives the building department the power to enter buildings on the Vacant Building Registry is a potential game-changer. Building inspectors can now make informed decisions on which buildings are beyond saving and which could be stabilized and then restored to use. It is even possible for the city, with neighborhood input, to set a goal of eliminating all vacant buildings within a three-year period. This would not only improve the health and well-being of residents, but also open the way for responsible development that includes both new construction on vacant land and restoration of the remaining viable historic buildings.

-- Tom McPheeters